Why CDFs in Africa?: representation vs. constituency service

Since 2002, constituency development funds (CDFs) have been established in nine African countries, and another two countries have created “approximations” of CDFs in that they address the perceived need by members of the legislature for budgeted funds to spend on the development of the districts they represent. Thus, just under one-quarter of the 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa have adopted some type of CDF. In this paper, we consider three alternative explanations for the apparent popularity of CDFs. Using data from the African Legislature Project and Afrobarometer, we find that the best account of the rise of CDFs is that while MP rightly perceive the need to maintain close contact with their constituents, they wrongly believe that their constituents look to them mainly for “pork.” Instead, African constituents’ primary expectations of their MP is that they regularly visit the district to learn what is on their minds, and to then quite literally “re-present” or transmit these views back to the central government via the legislature. In other words, while citizens desire stronger representation of their needs at the centre, MPs respond by delivering services and favours at the periphery (i.e. the district) thinking mistakenly that the CDFs are the answer to what the public wants. We also find little evidence of “good governance” advocates that CDFs lead to increased corruption or entrench MPs in office

Politics and the peasantry in Kenya: the lessons of Harambee

As anyone familiar with Kenya knows, Harambee, or self-help is a pervasive phenomenon which engages just about all rural dwellers, many city dwellers, most politicians and many state personnel. The widespread popularity and political significance of self-help has been documented in the literature for over a decade. Most studies, however, have assumed a rather homogeneous peasantry, and failed to examine the differential popularity of self-help in terms of the varying material circumstances of different strata within the Kenyan peasantry. This essay is addressed to the neglected question of what, precisely, is the social base of self-help. Based on survey research data from 2,075 respondents in seven districts, this paper argues that Harambee is particularly popular among "small" and "middle" peasants - those who own between one and ten acres of land. The paper further argues that the landless obtain benefits from Harambee projects as virtual "free riders" while "rich" peasants (those owning more than twenty acres) subsidize the poorer elements of the community through what is in effect a progressive form of local taxation. Whether "rich" peasants support Harambee, to the extent of their ability to pay, however, is an unresolved question

"Hometown" voluntary associations, local development and the emergence of civil society in Western Nigeria

This paper examines the membership and activities of one type of intermediary organization, the "hometown" voluntary association in the context of Western Nigeria, with the purpose of extending our understanding of the significance of these organizations for the process of local development and for the evolution of civil society and state society relations. Through a detailed examination of the membership, activities, internal structure, and external linkages of three hometown associations, we shall delineate the importance of similar organizations in rural communities across the continent

The African Legislatures Project: First Findings

This report presents the "first findings" from the African Legislatures Project or ALP. The report is based on the preliminary coding and analysis of data obtained from research in six countries-Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia, Namibia and South Africa (MP survey findings from South Africa are not presented as that element of the project is still in progress). Because the purpose of ALP is to achieve a comparative understanding of legislative institutions across Africa, and is funded from multiple sources, we have adopted the practice of including data from as many countries as possible when we present findings from the project. Field research for ALP began in late February 2008 and is expected to continue through the end of 2010 as the work proceeds seriatim in 18 African countries

Model International Mobility Convention

While people are as mobile as they ever were in our globalized world, the movement of people across borders lacks global regulation. This leaves many refugees in protracted displacement and many migrants unprotected in irregular and dire situations. Meanwhile, some states have become concerned that their borders have become irrelevant. International mobility—the movement of individuals across borders for any length of time as visitors, students, tourists, labor migrants, entrepreneurs, long-term residents, asylum seekers, or refugees—has no common definition or legal framework. To address this key gap in international law, and the growing gaps in protection and responsibility that are leaving people vulnerable, the "Model International Mobility Convention" proposes a framework for mobility with the goals of reaffirming the existing rights afforded to mobile people (and the corresponding rights and responsibilities of states) as well as expanding those basic rights where warranted. In 213 articles divided over eight chapters, the Convention establishes both the minimum rights afforded to all people who cross state borders as visitors, and the special rights afforded to tourists, students, migrant workers, investors and residents, forced migrants, refugees, migrant victims of trafficking and migrants caught in countries in crisis. Some of these categories are covered by existing international legal regimes. However, in this Convention these groups are for the first time brought together under a single framework. An essential feature of the Convention is that it is cumulative. This means, for the most part, that the chapters build on and add rights to the set of rights afforded to categories of migrants covered by earlier chapters. The Convention contains not only provisions that afford rights to migrants and, to a lesser extent, States (such as the right to decide who can enter and remain in their territory). It also articulates the responsibilities of migrants vis-à-vis States and the rights and responsibilities of different institutions that do not directly respond to a right held by migrants